PDA

View Full Version : Does size matter?



LWW
07-26-2008, 06:21 AM
In photography it does.

I was updating the insurance and they suggested I document some of the vintage glass I own so I lugged the bigger pieces to Eastwood Lake for some scenic shots.

These are the the larger ones and the longest lenses I own ... not counting AF modern glass.

I also included a relatively, in comparison, shorter lens solely because of it's pure heft.

This in a Cosina 100 - 500MM zoom which takes pretty good pics from a tripod. It's F8 aperture at the long end makes it quite slow. I have shot it handheld with 1,000 speed Ektar in the past, but even with good handheld skills (Shameless self endorsement. :lol:) it is a difficult beast to use without a tripod.

The SLR is a Nikon FM.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/FMCosina100500002.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/FMCosina100500001.jpg

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 06:22 AM
This a Kiev body, a Soviet Nikon clone to be specific, and an MTO 1,000MM F10 mirror lens.

Photo quality is not bad, and I use it primarily for astrophotography.

Forget handheld photography with this guy.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/MTOKiev1000001.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/MTOKiev1000002.jpg

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 06:23 AM
This is a very cool old Exacta SLR ... which if you are left handed and want a manual SLR is the only way to go as everything is backwards on the controls ... set up with a a Meyer Optik Telemegor 400MM F5.5 lens.

Thsi thing is a joy to use and is quite easily balanced for handheld photography and takes beautiful photos.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/MeyerOptik40002.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/MeyerOptik40001.jpg

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 06:24 AM
This is just a beast but is actually reasonably easy to balance.

As far as I know it was Nikon's first zoom lens. It is an 85-250MM F4.5 attached to an original Nikon F.

I bought these as a set and they both have some wear on the cosmetics so I shoot them more often than my pristine Nikon F bodies.

Both function perfectly in spite of being old enogh to have grandchildren and, as I mentioned, having a LOT of use.

I bought them cheap from the Dayton Daily News when they were switching buildings and cleaning out old stuff.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/Nikkor85250003.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/Nikkor85250001.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/Nikkor85250002.jpg

LWW

Vapros
07-26-2008, 07:38 AM
Hmmm . . . Cameras taking pictures of each other. Sort of like a nudist colony for photographers. Something perverse about it.

My uncle Avery lived in a nudist colony, where they called him 'tripod'. I never knew why.

sack316
07-26-2008, 11:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My uncle Avery lived in a nudist colony, where they called him 'tripod'. I never knew why. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif


LWW, me being a person that has always been interested in phoography but never took the time nor have I had the money to really get into stuff like you have... out of curiosity what do you estimate your value/investment into your equipment?

Sack

Wally_in_Cincy
07-26-2008, 01:34 PM
Do you fix any old stuff? I have a 1986 Ricoh SLR that went on the fritz in 2003 but I never threw it away. Ya want it?

You can't have my lenses though.

LWW
07-26-2008, 02:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My uncle Avery lived in a nudist colony, where they called him 'tripod'. I never knew why. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif


LWW, me being a person that has always been interested in phoography but never took the time nor have I had the money to really get into stuff like you have... out of curiosity what do you estimate your value/investment into your equipment?

Sack </div></div>
All told I have a small fortune.

If you want to learn with film, which has many advantages, the cost of getting started with some really good but used stuff is pretty inexpensive.

Going digital from the beginning is a little higher in the entry fee ... but you avoild film and development costs.

If you are disciplined digital is the way to go and just turn off all of the auto functions until you learn what each control does and how it effects every other setting.

If you aren't then start with a very basic manual camera which will force you to do this.

With an auto everything most people trust the chip to make all decisions and they end up with photos that are almost always technically exposed correctly but seldom eye appealing ... and they don't know how to make easy and minute adjustments on the fly because they never learned WTF all those stats in the viewfinder are actually telling them. It's sort of like an experienced player with a bar stick will kick a beginner's as who has a custom cue.

$500 will get you going with quite decent and digital stuff. $1,000 and you can have a really good and quite expandable system that you will be far less likely to outgrow quickly.

$500 in used film stuff and you can have a pro level setup from a short time back.

My basic shooter these days is a Nikon D50 which was $600 with a semi decent kit lens. I have a small fortune tied up in pro level glass plus I have become a collector over the years.

If you want to discuss it further we can PM or ... and I've thought of this, start a non pool hobby thread or threads. I'm sure there's a lot of knowledge in non pool areas here.

LWW

mike60
07-27-2008, 02:05 PM
Larry, I've got a Olympus E3 with some lenses and i got an adaptor to use my older film camera lenses on the E3. Nikon has an adaptor for the older lenses to use on the D50. Nice collection you've got there.

michaelsixty

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Larry, I've got a Olympus E3 with some lenses and i got an adaptor to use my older film camera lenses on the E3. Nikon has an adaptor for the older lenses to use on the D50. Nice collection you've got there.

michaelsixty </div></div>
Thanks, but that's not nearly all of it.

Nikon doesn't require an adapter however. Any Nikon F mount from 1959 forward will mount and function on a D50 ... although some of the older stuff won't meter or autofocus of course because they predated that technology.

I have a few antiquated handheld light meters and still do it the old way now and then.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:47 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Mamiya645.jpg

This is 1 of 2 medium format cameras I have.

It takes unbeliveable pics but is very expensive in film and processing...besides heavy.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:47 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/CherryNikonFwBC7.jpg

my pride and joy, a basicly new 1959 (1st year) Nikon F (pro grade) SLR with a serial number in the 1st 1,000. Yes I have the books and the boxes and the cases for both it and the BC-7 flash attachment and a rack of new flashbulbs.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:48 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/LowserFwFbellows.jpg

And this which another 1959 Nikon F with the 1959 F bellows attachment for macro work and a serial number in the 1st 300.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:48 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/NiceF2wSB1.jpg

This is a 1974 Nikon F2 with an SB-1 flash, which was the 1st street available electronic flash unit.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:49 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/CherryF3wSB12.jpg

This is a 1980 Nikon F3 with motor drive and SB-12 flash.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:49 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/CherryHitandStekynexttoF4.jpg

This is as new as I get in film, a 1988 Nikon F4, which IMHO is the finest 35MM film camera ever made, on the left is an early 1950's Japanese "HIT" and on the right a British Steky.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:50 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/YashicaRF.jpg

This is an early 50's Yashica 35 mm rangefinder.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:50 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/YashicaD.jpg

This is an early 50's Yashica D medium format TLR which is far more portable than the Mamiya 645.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:51 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/PrimoJr.jpg

This is an odd little guy I picked up at a garage sale.

It also is a early 50's TLR but it takes 35mm film, called the Primo Jr. I assume there is a Primo Sr but I haven't ever seen one.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:51 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Praktiflex.jpg

This is a pre WWII German Praktiflex 35 mm.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:52 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Nikonski.jpg

This is a 1980 Zenit Olympic. It is a Soviet made SLR and it was used at the 1980 Olympic games.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:52 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/NikonFM.jpg

This was my 1st nice camera and I've kept it nice for 31 years, a 1974 Nikon FM.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:53 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ExaktaBellows.jpg

This is another pre WWII Exakta with a bellow attachment for closeup work.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:53 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Contaflex.jpg

This is a postwar German Contax SLR.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:54 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/1899Kodak.jpg

This is an 1899 Kodak.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:54 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/RussianBesa2.jpg

This is another Soviet Kamerski, the Besa 2, which is a knockoff of the Minox. Both the Besa and the Minox were used as spy cameras during the cold war.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:54 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/NikonN8008S.jpg

This was my 1st autofocus, a Nikon N8008s.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:56 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/F4w80-200EDf2.jpg

This is the F4 again with a 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor zoom and ED glass. This is my absolute best lens and it is generally recognized as the premier zoom lens.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:56 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/F4w300EDf4.jpg

And the F4 again with a Nikkor 300 mm f4 ED telephoto which is my best piece of long glass.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 02:57 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/71a1a729.jpg

Nikon F4 with Sigma 400 MM f5.6 AFD lens. I'm not as happy with this one.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 03:00 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Fw300mmf4.jpg

Nikon F with 300 MM f4.5 and TC-201 2X teleconvertor.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 03:00 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Fw135f3.jpg

Nikon F with 135 MM f3.5.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 03:01 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Fw105f2.jpg

Nikon F with 105 MM f2.5.

LWW

LWW
07-27-2008, 03:01 PM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/F4w16mmF2.jpg

And this an ebay STEAL! A ZENITAR f2.8 16 MM full frame fisheye which as far as I can tell is a complete counterfeit of the Nikon version. A little softer at 2.8/4.0/and 5.6 but $99 and not a grand!

LWW

SpiderMan
07-27-2008, 04:59 PM
The reason it took so many tries to get a picture of that turd in the water is you had the camera aimed the wrong direction!

SpiderMan

wolfdancer
07-27-2008, 06:39 PM
LOL !!!

wolfdancer
07-27-2008, 06:50 PM
Congratulations...15 replies to your own post....this either ties, or breaks your old record....
Take the test:
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/narcissism_checklist.html

LWW
07-28-2008, 04:58 AM
WOW!

It is true wolfie.

You are a POS who will troll anything.

You once made me a promise that you would no longer read nor reply to anything I posted.

It's a shame you lack the morals to keep your word.

LWW

wolfdancer
07-28-2008, 10:50 AM
Truth kind of hurts, doesn't it ?

wolfdancer
07-28-2008, 11:35 AM
dropping the animosity...momentarily....that is a nice, it's a great, camera collection.
My little old $200 Nikon and $400 Hitachi DVD camcorder take nice photos, vids, for this untrained "eye".

Deeman3
07-28-2008, 12:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you fix any old stuff? I have a 1986 Ricoh SLR that went on the fritz in 2003 but I never threw it away. Ya want it?

You can't have my lenses though. </div></div>

LWW, Nice cameras. I have a couple of Nikons, a Mayamaya 645 1000s (similar to yours) and my baby a Hasselblad. In a former life, I shot a lot of news phots and more than a few weddings.

Wally,

If no one else wants to fix it, I will. I have given a few cameras to our local high school and can fix most SLR's. I'll pay postage if you want to send it. The kids would love another camera. I don't give them my guns. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
07-28-2008, 05:40 PM
MF is a whole different world. In digital you need 30 MP at least to match it's quality.

So few places develop it locally, and I disassembled the darkroom a few years ago, that I seldom shoot it any longer.

I still would like to pick up a large format camera some day.

Thanks BTW.

LWW

mike60
07-28-2008, 06:27 PM
Larry, The 20 or 30megapixel cameras start over $20,000. Waaay out of hand.


mike

LWW
07-29-2008, 05:54 AM
I know, I've looked at them.

20MP in 35MM size sensors will be here soon ... and a lot of people will be fooled into it.

The MF 20MP cameras have much larger sensors and are capable of much finer detail just as 120 fil was compared to 35.

The old 60 X 60 negatives gave 3,600 square of data compared to the 36 X 24 negatives 864 square.

A lot of people have already been duped into thinking that a 12MP APS-C sized sensor is equivalent to a "FULL FRAME" 35MM sized sensor.

LWW

Chopstick
07-29-2008, 07:17 AM
What are the specs on the cameras in the Predator that can take a picture of your face from 7 miles out or the ones in space that can photograph a license plate on a car?

Deeman3
07-29-2008, 07:30 AM
Yes, the 120 can be a hassle. I could do the B & W and C-41 in my father's studio but had to depend on Mizel in Dallas after that. The meduim format is great compared to 35mm but the larger sheet film cameras were the best, just way to much trouble unless you were doing something like scenery or such. I have a digital camera 12 MP but don't much like it except for being able to download and immediately photoshop it. I don't do near as much photography as I used to and like to.

LWW
07-29-2008, 07:57 AM
The funny thing about digital is that in 50 years most of the stuff that is shot will have vanished whereas so much from 100 years ago remains simply because the photographer was so much more invested in time and money that they felt obliged to preserve it.

LWW

Deeman3
07-29-2008, 08:03 AM
IN our studio in Texas, we had photos (negatives) going back to the 1800's. Some were portraits of cowboys, families and candids of western scenes in the Panhandle. I used ot love printing these for museums and for my own pleasure. Some of the negatives were 8x10! You just don't get that quality of clarity and grain size anymore.

LWW
07-29-2008, 08:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are the specs on the cameras in the Predator that can take a picture of your face from 7 miles out or the ones in space that can photograph a license plate on a car? </div></div>
Classified ... but the original spysat, Corona, used an 1,800MM F4 lens and it could resolve down to about 300 inches.

According to base scuttlebutt, place whatever value you want, can resolve to under 2 inches and see through cloud cover via radar.

Pretty astounding if accurate.

LWW

Deeman3
07-29-2008, 10:12 AM
I worked at Pantex back in the 1970's and I know, by accident, that the resolution was much better than the 300 inches that was being rumored around back then. God knows what they have now but Id' say LWW's guess is pretty good.

LWW
01-08-2012, 04:39 PM
Just finished my first cosmetic restoration of a camera, luckily it wasn't too hateful to begin with:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/Y-Frnt001.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/Y-Back001.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/T-Top0001.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/Cameras/Y-Bttm001.jpg

Soflasnapper
01-09-2012, 11:40 AM
Nice job, as that does look quite new!

However, what did you mean that it wasn't 'too hateful to begin with'?

Too damaged or worn, you mean?

LWW
01-09-2012, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice job, as that does look quite new!

However, what did you mean that it wasn't 'too hateful to begin with'?

Too damaged or worn, you mean? </div></div>

Yep ... and I luckily had a near identical model to look at for a reference.

The lens on this one was dinged up and had ookies growing inside it, the lens pictured is from another camera, so I'm looking for a nice lens cheap.

Mechanically this one was first rate, but it had some serious brassing coming through the finish, the leather was beat, and it had 2 small dings.

After some experimentation with TESTOR'S paint and my model airbrush I was able to match the finish ... after a couple dabs of filler in the dents ... and bought the leather online.

The old leather served as the template to make the new leather pieces ... AI don't think this restore would maintain it's finish like the factory job, but it looks sharp on display.

Oh, thanks for not trolling this like the olde skool cabal did when the thread was new.